Appeal: steelman
From DEBATE: TRENT HORN VS. JAY DYER: SHOULD CHRISTIANS ACCEPT NATURAL THEOLOGY?.
- #10589:38upheld Jay Dyer epainos: steelman (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“Transposition [Trent's position], as I've heard it outlined in multiple debates, including with Ben Watkins, is what I would classify, not with the intention of miss mischaracterizing him. He can he can freely correct me at any point if he thinks I misread him.”
Diogenes: Before attacking it, Jay states his source for the opponent's position, names the classification he is imposing (classical foundationalism), and openly invites correction if he has read it wrong.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer opened by denying autonomous natural theology while affirming natural law/contemplation, and has held that line throughout; this line is consistent with that opening framework, not a departure from it. Jay's opening has consistently rested on attributing to Trent a "classical foundationalist"/empiricist-Thomist epistemology drawn from Trent's other debates (e.g., with Ben Watkins), a characterization he maintains through the debate. In the cited line he flags his source, names the classification, and explicitly invites correction if he has misread Trent — a genuine (if brief) attempt at charitable, correctable attribution before mounting his critique, which is the substance of a steelman even though Trent had not yet spoken in this debate.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "steelman". Before critiquing Trent's epistemology, Jay explicitly flags that he is reconstructing it from other debates, disclaims any intent to mischaracterize, and invites Trent to correct him if he has misread the position — a good-faith attempt at charitable restatement rather than an assumed straw man.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay opened by rejecting "natural theology simpliciter" while distinguishing it from natural law/contemplation, and has consistently characterized Trent's position through named academic labels (classical foundationalism, peripatetic axiom) while inviting correction; this line is consistent with that pattern, not a departure. Jay names his source (the Ben Watkins framing), states the classification he is imposing, and explicitly invites correction if he has misread Trent — the hallmark charitable gesture of a steelman attempt, even though it is offered preemptively (before Trent's own opening) and Trent later contests the empiricism framing. Because Jay hedges and stays open to correction rather than asserting a fixed mischaracterization, this is a defensible instance of the steelman gesture rather than a straw man.
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.