Appeal: dodge
From Jay Dyer vs Mike Lowry Urantia Debate: Christianity vs Urantianism.
- #131652:09overturned Mike Lowry psogos: dodge (+2)
The council overturned the call, so no points were given away.
“Great. I'm not here to argue, really.”
Diogenes: Asked four times for an objective standard that distinguishes true from false revelation, Mike offered only "the fruit of the spirit", conceded it does not discriminate when the Mormon case was put, promised "I can give you an answer" and never supplied one, then declined the demand altogether.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Mike's declared method rests on personal-revelation epistemology and explicitly declines demands for an external objective standard, but the record shows he first offered "fruit of the spirit," was told it was subjective, then promised "I can give you an answer. It's objective and epistemic, but it's not religious" — a promise he never redeemed with any actual standard, before this line withdraws from the exchange outright. The question "what is your objective standard to delineate true from false revelation" was put at least three times (50:05, 50:23, and again around 52:00); Mike's only substantive answer, "fruit of the spirit," was conceded as subjective, and his follow-up promise of a different, objective/epistemic answer at 50:23 was never cashed out — instead of supplying it he shifted to disputing whether the question was "religious" at all, and this line then abandons the exchange ("I'm not here to argue, really") without ever naming the upstream presupposition he denies or saying what must be settled first, so it falls short of a framework objection and lands as a dodge.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. Read against the whole exchange, this is a momentary terminological snag, not a dodge: Jay had just said "there's not an argument here," Mike took "argument" to mean the activity of arguing and disclaimed interest in that, and when Jay immediately distinguished "an argument" (a case for a position) from "arguing," Mike said "Oh, I see" and gave a substantive answer ("I don't find it to be valuable for anybody's connection with God"). That answer is consistent with his stated method throughout (personal/experiential epistemology declining the demand for objective, debate-style standards), so this is his framework restated, not an evasion of a question he had not yet answered — the actual concession that he lacks an epistemic criterion comes later and honestly, at 65:31.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Mike declared at the opening that his authority is personal/experiential and doctrine-secondary ("fruit of the spirit" as the test, not an external objective standard), and the quoted line — declining to treat the exchange as an argument he must win on Jay's objectivist terms — holds that position rather than departing from it. Jay's repeated demand was for an "objective standard"; Mike had already answered per his own declared framework ("the fruit of the spirit") at 50:05, and when Jay called that subjective and pressed further, Mike did not go silent but explicitly declined the objectivist framing itself ("that's an intellectual endeavor... not actually religion"), then at the quoted line owns Jay's own conclusion ("there's not an argument here") by saying he isn't here to argue at all. That is a restatement of his opening-declared position — experiential epistemology that "declines a demand for an external objective standard" — not a silent failure to answer; the actual, franker concession that he has no epistemic criterion comes later and explicitly, at 65:31, which I already scored as a concession. Treating this earlier, self-aware declination as a dodge double-counts the same standing refusal and mischaracterizes an avowed framework stance as silence.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: framework objection is not a dodge. Mike's recorded method is explicitly "declines a demand for an external objective standard" — so refusing Jay's objectivist terms is his declared framework, not an ad hoc evasion. In the run-up to the quoted line he names the distinction he is defending ("that's an intellectual endeavor... but it's not actually religion to be intellectually epistemic and objective") and offers his own criterion ("the fruit of the spirit"), so he is contesting the presupposition that religious truth must be settled by Jay's objective/argumentative standard rather than simply going silent on the question. The genuine concession that he has no epistemic criterion comes later and explicitly, at 65:31 ("There isn't any... You don't have an argument"), a separate moment; reading that later admission back into this earlier line to convict it as a dodge conflates two distinct exchanges.
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.