Appeal: dodge
From Jay Dyer vs Pastor P Debate Orthodoxy vs Protestantism, Sola Scriptura and Church History.
- #135051:04upheld Pastor P psogos: dodge (+3)
The council upheld the call: Pastor P gave away 3 points.
“Okay. I believe God has supervised the the canon…”
Diogenes: After the host restated the question as plainly as possible — why is this blessing true rather than one anyone could claim — he repeats the same assertion he has already given three times, which is the statement of his position rather than a reason for it.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Pastor P's consistent position is that God has providentially blessed the transmission chain of his received text/canon (Carthage, Erasmus, Luther, the King James translators) as the warrant for its correctness, asserted repeatedly throughout without a distinguishing epistemic criterion. The moderator here restated, as plainly as possible, a question Jay had already pressed multiple times (why is this specific claim of divine blessing true rather than an unfalsifiable assertion anyone could make about any book), and Pastor P's answer is simply the same historical-providence narrative he has given at least three times prior in the debate, with no new criterion distinguishing a warranted blessing-claim from an arbitrary one — this is a direct question, asked repeatedly and reformulated for clarity, still met only with restated assertion rather than an answer, and Pastor P never names any presupposition in the question that he denies, so the framework-objection carve-out does not apply.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "dodge". The moderator has just restated, on Jay's behalf, the standing question that has been asked repeatedly through this whole stretch — not what Pastor P believes about the canon's blessing, but why anyone should think that belief is true rather than an arbitrary assertion ("couldn't anybody say that?"). Pastor P answers only "I believe God has supervised the canon," restating the same bare assertion of belief that has already been given several times without ever supplying the requested justification, prompting Jay's immediate "that's not an argument."
- Plato uphold: On the record: Pastor P's standing defense throughout has been that God providentially blessed the canon/text lineage; when asked directly (and now via the moderator's restatement) what distinguishes this claim from anyone else's identical assertion, he repeats the bare claim itself rather than supplying the requested independent justification, continuing rather than departing from the unresolved pattern. The moderator had just reformulated, as plainly as possible, the question Jay had already pressed repeatedly (why is your "blessing" claim true rather than a bare assertion anyone could make of their own canon), and Pastor P's answer is the same unadorned assertion ("I believe God has supervised the canon") he has given multiple times before, immediately called out by Jay as "not an argument" — a restatement of position, not a reason for it. This is the same unresolved core question (why trust the providential-blessing claim over any rival claim) that has gone unanswered across many exchanges in this debate (e.g., the parallel dodge I already upheld at 34:54), and here it recurs after the clearest possible framing, which supports the flagrant severity.
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.