Appeal: misrepresentation
From HEATED DEBATE! “jesusandwhatnot” Vs Jay Dyer! His ‘Gotcha’ Fails LOL.
- #11621:58:34upheld Jay Dyer psogos: misrepresentation (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer gave away 2 points.
“… this is a common thing that young guys do where they pretend that they have these linguistic skills. Exact same thing that Ananda did.”
Diogenes: The opponent never claimed the skill — asked point blank he said "I wouldn't say I'm fluent in Latin" and "that's just how I've heard it referenced" — and Dyer himself grants this eight minutes later ("at least he was honest that he didn't know it"), so the pretense is invented and then attached to an unrelated man's lie about being a translator.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer's declared pattern throughout the stream is to link every young convert's rhetorical missteps to the "same red flags" seen in prior subversives (Ananda, Gideon Laser, etc.); here that pattern overreaches into a specific factual claim about what S2 did that the record, including Jay's own later words, contradicts. When directly asked, S2 immediately admitted "I wouldn't say I'm fluent in Latin" and explained "that's just how I've heard it referenced" — he never claimed the linguistic skill Jay attributes to him here, and Jay himself later concedes the disanalogy explicitly ("at least he was honest that he didn't know it"), which directly undercuts equating S2's conduct with Ananda's fabricated claim of being a bishop-approved translator. This is straight-up post-call commentary about the exchange that just happened (still on the floor), and it attributes to S2 a pretense the transcript shows he did not maintain.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "hasty generalization", on the same ledger as the callout. Dyer lumps the caller in with Ananda's case as "the exact same thing," but the two are not alike in degree: Ananda was shown (via cited DMs) to have actively lied about being a bishop-approved linguistic translator, while this caller, when pressed, openly admitted he wasn't fluent in Latin and was only repeating terms he'd heard used. Equating an open admission of imprecision with a documented deception, and generalizing it to "a common thing young guys do," overreaches the specific evidence on hand.
- Plato uphold: On the record: This is commentary made immediately after the call ended, still discussing that caller's conduct in the exchange just concluded, so it remains on the floor; Jay's charge that S2 "pretended" to have linguistic skills departs from what S2 actually said and from Jay's own subsequent, more accurate characterization of the same exchange. S2, when asked directly whether he knew Latin, answered honestly ("I wouldn't say I'm fluent... that's just how I've heard it referenced"); he never claimed personal linguistic expertise or fraudulent credentials the way Ananda did in claiming to be a bishop-endorsed translator. Equating the two as "the exact same thing" mischaracterizes what S2 actually said, and Jay's own later remark just minutes on ("at least he was honest that he didn't know it") confirms the transcript does not support the "pretending" charge leveled here.
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.