Appeal: explicit argument
From FULL SAVAGE DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Indiana Brunner: Protestant Bible Wrong???.
- #10311:13:52overturned Jay Dyer epainos: explicit argument (+2)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“… if a text had been read and it went back as far as anyone could remember and as far as other church fathers had, given witness to, say, Irenaeus, say Clement, say Ignatius, say they cited a text, those were good pieces of evidence that that's probably authentic…”
Diogenes: He states a criterion, lectionary continuity plus patristic citation, and the conclusion it licenses, probable authenticity, which is the positive answer to the question he had only pressed negatively during the exchange.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: S0 has argued throughout that tradition and patristic continuity, not sola scriptura, ground the canon; this line continues that same theme but occurs at 73:52, within the same unaccompanied slide-walkthrough monologue that began after S1 was removed from the space, with no opponent present. Whatever the quality of the reasoning, the floor rule excludes any monologue delivered with no opponent present to answer or be answered from being judged on either ledger, and this line falls within that same solo canon-lists presentation as the preceding calls.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "evidence", on the same ledger as the callout. Rather than merely asserting that tradition determines authenticity, Jay names a specific, checkable criterion, citation by early named witnesses (Irenaeus, Clement, Ignatius) going back as far as living memory, plus attested liturgical use across sees, as the actual historical mechanism used to judge a text's authenticity. This distinguishes the claim (tradition settles authenticity) from the evidence for it (specific patristic citations and liturgical practice).
- Plato overturn: On the record: S0's canon/tradition-mechanism argument has been on record since he raised it against S1 mid-debate; this elaboration is a solo continuation delivered after the opponent left, not a live exchange, so it cannot be scored here regardless of its argumentative quality. This quote is again within the same unbroken solo monologue running from roughly 62:00 to 74:43, after S1 (and later Mike) had left the floor; S0 is explaining his position to the audience with no opponent present to answer or contest it. Under the floor principle, a monologue is not judged on either ledger, however well-reasoned.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: the floor: no opponent present. The transcript confirms Indiana Brunner was removed from the space well before this quote: at [58:59]-[59:05] Big Mike explicitly asks "Did Indiana get booted?" and Jay answers "Yep," and at [62:00] Jay begins addressing "everybody" and thanking viewers for "a good conversation there for over an hour" before launching into a solo slide-by-slide walkthrough of Lee McDonald's canon lists. The quoted line at [73:52] sits inside that unbroken monologue, delivered to the audience with no opponent on the floor to answer or contest it, so under the floor rule it cannot be scored on either ledger regardless of its argumentative merit.
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.