Appeal: dodge
From Jay Dyer vs Pastor P Debate Orthodoxy vs Protestantism, Sola Scriptura and Church History.
- #131534:54upheld Pastor P psogos: dodge (+1) tempered from major to minor
The council upheld the call: Pastor P gave away 1 point.
“Again, we're gonna have to agree to disagree.”
Diogenes: Asked repeatedly on what basis he takes the canon from a council whose other teachings he rejects, he twice retreats to "agree to disagree" rather than giving the basis.Herodotus (partly): On this site's records, Pastor P has exactly one debate (this one), so there is no cross-debate pattern of dodging to point to here — the referee's citation of him twice retreating to "agree to disagree" is confined to this single exchange, which the transcript itself corroborates. Outside this site, Jay Dyer and Pastor P debated once before, in November 2022 on "The Crucible" podcast, on the identical topic (sola scriptura vs. the canon/authority question) — but no available transcript or commentary from that earlier encounter documents Pastor P dodging in the same way, so it can't be used to substantiate a repeated pattern. Jay Dyer himself has a long history on this site (24 debates, frequent upheld ad hominem/misrepresentation faults), but that record concerns his own conduct, not Pastor P's, and doesn't bear on whether Pastor P is a repeat dodger. In short: the specific behavior is real and repeated within this one debate, but there is no documented history of Pastor P dodging across multiple encounters, so treating it as an established "pattern" for sentencing purposes would overreach the evidence. Sources: https://jaydyer.substack.com/p/jay-dyer-debate-vs-pastor-p-bible-ff9 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I7e9XmpovU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVnGaWrfIx8
- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Pastor P's declared and consistently held position is that Carthage's decision on the New Testament canon was divinely blessed and criterion-based (agreement with the Old Testament as he understands it, plus apostolic supervision); the "agree to disagree" lines are offered as an acknowledgment of a genuine point of disagreement (whether the deuterocanon counts as Old Testament) rather than a refusal to continue engaging, and he goes on in the same breath to restate his standing criterion rather than departing into silence. Both times Pastor P says "we're gonna have to agree to disagree," it is not followed by silence but by an immediate, substantive (if circular) attempt at a basis: after the first instance he adds "I accept what they decided as far as the canon of the New Testament," and after the second he adds "I believe that they were consistent on their decision and their criteria." A dodge requires the question to go unanswered; here Pastor P keeps supplying the same criterion (OT agreement plus apostolic supervision, as he construes them) each time, which is why this exact stretch of dialogue has already been credited on this bench as "begging the question" (32:14) and as bringing him to aporia (35:30) — he is answering, badly and circularly, not stonewalling into silence.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "dodge". Jay has asked essentially the same question at least twice by this point — on what principled basis Pastor P accepts Carthage's ruling on the New Testament canon while rejecting Carthage's inclusion of the deuterocanon in the Old Testament ("on what basis is that the counsel that you're going to when you don't accept what they say about anything?"). Rather than giving the criterion, Pastor P simply says "we're gonna have to... agree to disagree" and reasserts that Carthage "were consistent," without ever identifying what makes his selective acceptance non-arbitrary.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S1 has held since the opening that Scripture is perfect while the church errs, yet Carthage got the canon right; asked what basis lets him keep Carthage on the New Testament while rejecting Carthage on the deuterocanon, he twice answers agree to disagree rather than give a basis. The specific question of basis for selective trust in Carthage was asked twice and met both times with agree to disagree plus a restated circular criterion, not a real answer; the ensuing aporia shows no basis was ever supplied.
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.