Appeal: equivocation
From HEATED DEBATE! “jesusandwhatnot” Vs Jay Dyer! His ‘Gotcha’ Fails LOL.
- #10232:07:10upheld Jay Dyer psogos: equivocation (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer gave away 1 point.
“So him conceding the paradigm is retarded. Well, then the Thomistic paradigm is false if you're conceding that.”
Diogenes: Granting an opponent's paradigm for the sake of argument is not asserting that one's own is false; Jay slides between the arguendo and simpliciter senses of "concede" to justify ending the exchange.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer has held throughout this exchange that paradigm-level agreement must be settled before object-level quoting of the fathers can proceed; here he goes further than that standing objection by treating S2's repeatedly-qualified arguendo grants as unqualified admissions, which is a distinct slide in the sense of "concede" rather than a mere restatement. Throughout this segment S2 repeatedly and explicitly hedges his concessions as arguendo — "for the sake of this debate, we can throw Thomism out the window," "for the sake of this conversation, I am granting your exact worldview," "I've adopted the Jay Dyer paradigm... whatever paradigm you want" — precisely because Jay had told him "I don't want you to do it for the sake of argument," yet S2 kept the qualifier anyway. Jay's later monologue treats these same hedged, strategic grants as if S2 had actually renounced Thomism as false ("him conceding the paradigm is retarded... the Thomistic paradigm is false if you're conceding that... there's nothing else to debate and it falls"), sliding from the "granted for argument's sake" sense of concede to the "admitted as actually true" sense in order to declare the exchange over. That is a real equivocation on the term, not merely a restatement of his paradigm-first framework objection.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "misrepresentation", on the same ledger as the callout. S2's earlier "sure, it's self-refuting, Thomism is wrong" was an exasperated arguendo concession made only to get back to the filioque question, as S2 said explicitly moments later ("I've adopted the Jay Dyer paradigm... I just wanna have a conversation about the filioque"). In this recap to Tristan, Dyer treats that rhetorical yielding as a sincere philosophical admission and builds a further conclusion on it — "the Thomistic paradigm is false if you're conceding that" — presenting the manufactured concession as though it settled the whole dispute, rather than acknowledging what S2 actually said he was doing.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay's declared and consistently held framework objection is that S2 cannot justify the Thomist paradigm's first principles (the peripatetic axiom); throughout the exchange S2 repeatedly and explicitly frames his grants as arguendo ("for the sake of this conversation, I am granting your exact worldview," "for the sake of this conversation, I'm an idiot, I don't understand first principles"), never as a simpliciter admission that Thomism is actually false. Given S2's repeated, explicit "for the sake of argument" framing, Jay's post-call gloss "him conceding the paradigm... the Thomistic paradigm is false if you're conceding that" trades on the ambiguity between granting a premise arguendo and admitting it is actually false, which is the equivocation the referee identifies; this is consistent with the arguendo/tactical character of S2's grants already recognized in adjacent rulings on this same exchange.
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.