Appeal: red herring
From FULL SAVAGE DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Indiana Brunner: Protestant Bible Wrong???.
- #102531:14tied, awaiting the moderator Jay Dyer psogos: red herring (+1)
The council is split: nothing counts until the moderator decides.
“I mean, you say whatever. I mean, Roman Catholics use a Judaized bread, so it's... That matters.”
Diogenes: The point on the table was whether John 6 entails a repeated liturgical eucharist; S0 answers only the incidental word "wafer" and leads the exchange onto the leavening of Roman bread, which bears on nothing in dispute between him and a Protestant.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: S0 has consistently distinguished Orthodox practice from Roman Catholic practice throughout the debate (e.g. uncreated vs. created grace at the outset); this aside continues that habitual distinguishing rather than being aimed at evading a live question, since S1 had already dropped her wafer point with a dismissive "whatever" before this line. At the moment of this quote there was no live, still-pending question from S1 for S0 to divert from — S1 had already abandoned the wafer exchange with "whatever," and immediately after, S1 herself characterizes the exchange as "jumping all over the place," indicating mutual, undirected tangent rather than S0 substituting this aside for an answer he owed.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. Dyer here is correcting Brunner's prior mischaracterization ("wafer... calling him down from heaven") by noting Orthodox don't use wafers, then adds a brief, undeveloped aside about Roman Catholic unleavened bread. It's a minor tangent, not tied back to the real-presence question on the table, but it doesn't substitute for an answer already given, isn't aimed at closing the question, and isn't a named fallacy in play, so nothing on the rubric is plainly shown.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay's declared method is to press John 6/Hebrews 13 textual argument for real presence against Brunner's low-church reading; this aside about Catholic bread-type does not advance or defend that argument against Brunner's actual point and instead diverts into a Catholic-Orthodox side issue irrelevant to the Protestant-Orthodox line of dispute, which is the red herring named. Brunner's substantive point was that "gnaw on my flesh" entails a liturgical process calling Christ into bread/wine; Jay's reply pivots first to a minor correction (Orthodox don't use wafers) and then to an unrelated aside about Roman Catholic "Judaized bread," which bears on nothing in the actual dispute between Orthodox Jay and Protestant Brunner over whether John 6 supports real presence at all. Brunner's immediate "Point being... we're jumping all over the place here" confirms the exchange drifted off the question on the table.
- Thesmothetes leave: The three judges disagree only on whether the Judaized-bread aside actually pulled the live thread (whether John 6 entails a liturgical real presence) away from itself, or was instead a continuation of S0's habitual Orthodox-vs-Catholic distinguishing move seen throughout the debate (e.g. the created/uncreated grace distinction at the opening) triggered by S1's own mischaracterization ("wafer," "calling him down from heaven"). That is a dispute over whether the words fit the red herring label, not a case where any listed rule settles the point either way, so it is left to the archon.
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.