Appeal: fallacy spotted
From Jay Dyer vs Mike Lowry Urantia Debate: Christianity vs Urantianism.
- #132757:38upheld Jay Dyer epainos: fallacy spotted (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 2 points.
“If you reinterpret all of the words, it doesn't matter. You don't mean it in the sense that we mean…”
Diogenes: Jay correctly identifies the equivocation in Mike's repeated "I agree with that": the same terms are being affirmed in incompatible senses, so the professed agreement is verbal only.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay held from the opening that a rival paradigm must be judged by whether its terms carry the same objective content, and he consistently flagged Mike's reuse of Christian vocabulary with altered meanings; this line is a continuation of that same charge, not a new or unsupported claim. Throughout the debate Jay's standing objection was that Mike affirms shared vocabulary (Trinity, resurrection, kingdom, gospel) while assigning it Neoplatonic/emanationist content incompatible with Nicene usage (e.g., calling the Son and Spirit 'created through the Father,' denying homoousion, redefining atonement and resurrection). The quoted line is a direct application of that standing critique, not an ad hoc insult: Mike had just said 'I totally agree with you' on doctrines he then defined divergently, so naming the equivocation is grounded in what Mike actually said, not a mischaracterization.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "fallacy spotted". Jay is pointing out that when Mike claims agreement ("almost everything you just said, I agree with"), Mike is using the same theological terms (trinity, church, resurrection, atonement) with a different, Urantian sense than the Nicene/Orthodox sense Jay stated - an equivocation. This is grounded in the transcript: earlier (around 45:26-45:30) Mike explicitly conceded "Yeah" when Jay said "you're using the words in a way different way than we mean them," so Jay's diagnosis of equivocation here is not an assertion out of nowhere but a correctly identified pattern in what Mike himself has said and conceded.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S1 has held since the opening that rival paradigms must be judged by whether they can supply objective, non-equivocal standards (his TAG framework), and this line is a direct application of that standing critique, not a new or inconsistent move. Jay's framework throughout rests on requiring an objective, historically-continuous standard, and he has repeatedly demonstrated that Mike uses shared theological vocabulary (kingdom, resurrection, immortal soul, trinity, agreement) while assigning it non-standard, incompatible content (e.g., the explicit exchange around 45:00-47:00: "I see. So you're using the words in a way different way than we mean them... I see the disconnect now"). The quoted line at 57:38 continues that same, already-established diagnosis in response to Mike's claim "almost everything you just said, I agree with" regarding trinity/Gentile-conversion prophecy, where Mike's Neoplatonic/subordinationist Trinity plainly differs from Nicene homoousion despite the verbal overlap. This is equivocation genuinely present in Mike's own statements (affirming words while redefining their referents), not a fallacy invented via mischaracterization, so it is correctly scored philosopher/fallacy-spotted rather than sophist.
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.