Appeal: begging the question
From HEATED DEBATE! “jesusandwhatnot” Vs Jay Dyer! His ‘Gotcha’ Fails LOL.
- #11601:43:45upheld Base Catholic psogos: begging the question (+1)
The council upheld the call: Base Catholic gave away 1 point.
“Well, no. Obviously, we we have the same epistemology.”
Diogenes: The whole dispute at that moment is whether the two men share a framework for reading the Fathers, and he licenses his inference by simply asserting that they do.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S2 has held since his opening that his Thomist/Garrigou-Lagrange inferences about relations of opposition are simply correct and should be accepted on their own terms; here, pressed to justify why Jay must accept them, he retreats to an unsupported assertion of shared epistemology rather than defending the paradigm-level claim Jay is actually contesting, which is consistent with (not a departure from) his pattern of asserting rather than justifying his metaphysical starting points in this exchange. Jay's question was precisely why S2's Thomist inference should be accepted absent a shared reasoning framework; S2's answer — "we have the same epistemology" — assumes the very point in dispute (whether they share a paradigm for reading the Fathers/Trinity) as the license for accepting his inference, without independently establishing it. That is a textbook instance of assuming the conclusion needed to make the argument work.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "begging the question". Pressed by Dyer to justify why the Thomist model should be accepted rather than merely asserted, S2 answers "we have the same epistemology" — but shared epistemic starting points is exactly the point in dispute (Dyer had already declared he rejects classical foundationalism), so asserting commonality functions as assuming the very premise needed to license the Thomist argument rather than establishing it.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2's opening position is a Thomist defense of the Filioque via relations of opposition; when pressed on why his epistemic starting point should be accepted, this line departs from actually justifying it and instead assumes the contested premise (shared epistemology) as already granted, which Jay immediately and correctly rejects. At the exact moment the two are disputing whether they share a common epistemic framework for reading the fathers, S2 answers Jay's demand for justification of the Thomist model by simply asserting "we have the same epistemology" — treating the very point in dispute as already settled and using it as license to proceed, which is the textbook shape of begging the question.
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.