Appeal: ad hominem
From Jay Dyer vs Mike Lowry Urantia Debate: Christianity vs Urantianism.
- #13821:53:13upheld Mike Lowry psogos: ad hominem (+2)
The council upheld the call: Mike Lowry gave away 2 points.
“Let's please not go into that total, like, straight Asperger's realm because if we we'll lose all the value.”
Diogenes: Pressed on having contradicted himself repeatedly, Mike characterises the demand for consistency as a psychological defect in Jay rather than answering any of the contradictions named.Herodotus (no): The site's own ledger shows Mike Lowry with exactly one debate on record here — this encounter against Jay Dyer — so there is no prior pattern of ad hominem conduct to point to; this is a first, isolated infraction, not a repeated behavior. Public search confirms the same: the only findable Jay Dyer/Mike Lowry Urantia debate is this same exchange (published in two parts on Jay's Analysis/Substack), with no other independent Mike Lowry debate history turning up anywhere online. Context also matters: this was a mutually heated exchange — Jay had just been hurling his own insults ("gay soy realm," cracks about "bald dudes") moments before and after Mike's Asperger's remark — so while the line itself is a fair ad hominem, it reads as a single retaliatory jab in a two-way flame war rather than evidence of an established pattern warranting extra severity. Sources: https://jaysanalysis.com/debate-jay-dyer-vs-mike-urantia-parts-1-2-james-fox-higgins-show/ https://jaydyer.substack.com/p/debate-part-1-jay-dyer-vs-mike-urantia-03f https://jaydyer.substack.com/p/debate-2-jay-dyer-and-mike-urantia-a11
- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Mike's declared position throughout is that doctrinal precision and fallacy-chasing are not what matters in religion, and this line continues that dismissive theme; but rather than stating that objection as a reasoned framework point (why precision-chasing is the wrong standard) it recharacterizes Jay's mode of argument as a psychological/neurological defect ("Asperger's realm") right when Jay has just pressed specific, named contradictions and misuse of terms. The remark substitutes for any engagement with the specific contradictions and terminological confusions Jay had just listed, is not backed by anything specific, and is aimed at shutting the line of examination down ("let's not go into that... we'll lose all the value") rather than inviting continued scrutiny, so it fails the substitution, truth, and aim tests even though the underlying theme (doctrine-vs-spirit) is one Mike has held throughout; given the mutual, escalating flame-war context and the absence of any prior pattern for this speaker, minor severity better fits the record than major.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "ad hominem". Rather than answering Jay's live charge that he is inconsistent (claiming commonality with fathers he admits he hasn't read while faulting Jay for representing a book Jay hasn't read), Mike waves the whole line of questioning away as "straight Asperger's realm," a jab at Jay's manner of arguing rather than a rebuttal, and the exchange never returns to the substantive point afterward, sliding instead into mutual insult.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Mike has held throughout that he prefers substantive engagement over "gotcha" style scorekeeping (stated explicitly around 72-78), and the called line is consistent with that stance — a redirect away from unproductive fallacy-naming rather than a fresh dodge of a specific charge. This is meta-commentary about the mode the exchange has degenerated into (naming fallacies, itemizing contradictions) rather than a substitute for a specific unanswered charge — Jay's preceding remark was vague banter ("you don't even know why... a fallacy is") rather than a discrete, itemized question awaiting a direct answer at that exact moment, and Mike continues engaging with the substance immediately afterward. The exchange is also mutual: Jay retaliates in kind within seconds ("gay soy realm," "bald dudes"), so this reads as one jab in a symmetrical flame-out at the debate's close rather than Mike using insult to evade a specific point on the table.
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.