Appeal: self-contradiction
From HEATED DEBATE! “jesusandwhatnot” Vs Jay Dyer! His ‘Gotcha’ Fails LOL.
- #11642:09:32overturned Jay Dyer psogos: self-contradiction (+2)
The council overturned the call, so no points were given away.
“So there's really no point just like with Muslims in engaging in these, like, metaphysics high tier stuff because 99% of Muslims, 99.9, can't do metaphysics.”
Diogenes: At 122:12 he insisted his refusal was "not because I don't wanna debate the Filioque or I don't wanna talk about the Cappadocians" but purely a matter of paradigms; here, naming the Filioque, the reason becomes that there is no point engaging the metaphysics at all since a cruder line "converts way more people," which is a different and incompatible ground for the same refusal.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer held from ~104:01 through ~122:08 that his refusal to trade Filioque quotations with S2 was a pure paradigm-level objection, not reluctance to engage the topic itself; the 129:32 line, which explicitly reattaches to the Filioque, supplies a contrary, effectiveness-based reason for the same refusal that the earlier framing had specifically ruled out. At ~122:08 Jay explicitly disclaimed that his refusal to engage S2 on the Filioque was born of unwillingness: "not because I don't wanna debate the filioque or I don't wanna talk about the Cappadocians. It's because I'm not gonna be interpreting them from the same way that you interpret them" — i.e., purely a paradigm-mismatch objection. At 129:32, naming the Filioque directly, he gives an incompatible ground for the very same refusal: that engaging the metaphysics is pointless because the audience can't follow it and cruder claims "convert way more people" — a persuasion-effectiveness rationale that amounts to exactly the unwillingness he had just denied holding. These are two different and non-reconcilable reasons offered for the identical refusal, without acknowledgment of the shift.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. This is Dyer musing to Tristan about apologetic strategy — whether high-level metaphysics is worth deploying against a general audience — not an argument advanced against any live question or any opponent present who is being answered or is answering. It is talk about how debates with a category of opponent are best fought, not a move made within a debate, so per the rubric it scores on neither ledger.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay explicitly declared at ~121-122 that his refusal to argue the Filioque on the caller's terms was "not because I don't wanna debate the filioque or I don't wanna talk about the Cappadocians" but purely a paradigm-level objection; minutes later, introducing the topic by name ("the other thing about the filioque"), he asserts there is "really no point... in engaging in these metaphysics high tier stuff" because audiences can't follow it and cruder arguments convert better. The later claim is framed explicitly as being about the Filioque and states outright that there is no point engaging that metaphysics at all, directly at odds with the earlier express disclaimer that unwillingness to debate the Filioque was not his reason for declining the exchange; Jay gives no indication he is aware of or reconciling the shift.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: the floor: no opponent present. By 128:08 the Thomist caller (Base Catholic) has said his last words, "Cool. Yeah. That's it.," and the floor moves to an unrelated topic (scheduling the Josie/junior debate) with S1 and S5 (Tristan); the 129:32 line is Jay circling back on his own, as an aside to his friends, to muse about apologetic strategy generally, not a statement made to or answered by Base Catholic. The earlier disclaimer at ~122:08 was made live to that opponent inside the exchange, but the later line is commentary/monologue off the floor, and the rule is explicit that a callout needs the exchange, not a speaker's unaddressed aside minutes after the opponent has gone quiet.
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.