Appeal: fallacy spotted
From Jay Dyer vs Pastor P Debate Orthodoxy vs Protestantism, Sola Scriptura and Church History.
- #139135:30upheld Jay Dyer epainos: fallacy spotted (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“… it's begging the question because you're saying that what agrees with the Old Testament, but if the Deuterocanon is part of the Old Testament, then that doesn't work.”
Diogenes: Read blind, without being shown any call on this passage. Pastor P had just given his criterion for the New Testament canon as agreement with "the Old Testament," but that criterion silently assumes a particular, narrower Old Testament that excludes the Deuterocanon — precisely the point in dispute, since the very Council of Carthage he invokes affirmed the Deuterocanon as part of the Old Testament. Jay correctly names this circularity: the standard used to justify the canon already presupposes the contested conclusion about the canon's contents, which is a genuine instance of begging the question in what Pastor P actually said, not a misreading of it.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer has held since his opening that canon and apostolic authorship are known only through the church's continuous tradition, not by ad hoc individual reasoning; this call is a direct application of that standing position to expose a specific circularity in Pastor P's stated criterion, not a departure from it. Jay's opening statement and subsequent exchanges establish his consistent framework: the canon is a historical fact determined by the church, and Pastor P's appeal to Carthage is arbitrary because Pastor P accepts Carthage's NT list while rejecting Carthage's affirmation of the Deuterocanon as part of the Old Testament. Pastor P had explicitly stated his criterion for the NT canon was that books must "agree 100% with the Old Testament" (32:49-33:07) and that Carthage's decision rested on that criterion (35:10-35:19). Jay's quoted line correctly identifies that this criterion is circular: it presupposes a narrower Old Testament (excluding Deuterocanon) that is itself the very point in dispute, since the same council being invoked as authoritative affirmed the Deuterocanon as OT. This is begging the question located in what Pastor P actually said, not a strawman or misreading — it is the culmination of a live back-and-forth (31:00-35:30) where Jay repeatedly pressed exactly this point and Pastor P never resolved it, instead retreating to "I believe" and "agree to disagree."
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "fallacy spotted (begging the question)". Jay correctly identifies that Pastor P's stated criterion for the Carthage canon—"agrees with the Old Testament"—smuggles in the very point in dispute, since the Old Testament that Carthage itself recognized included the Deuterocanon that Pastor P rejects; so appealing to "agreement with the Old Testament" to justify the New Testament canon while presupposing a narrower Old Testament than the council he invokes actually held is circular. This is not a mischaracterization of a mechanism-based answer but a real identification of Pastor P picking and choosing from Carthage's authority without independent justification, a move central to this whole exchange.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer has held throughout that appeal to Carthage for the NT canon while rejecting Carthage's OT canon (including the Deuterocanon) is arbitrary/inconsistent; this line is a direct application of that standing critique, not a departure from it. Pastor P set his standard for canon inclusion as agreement with "the Old Testament" without contradiction; Jay Dyer points out this criterion is circular because it presupposes a narrower OT (excluding the Deuterocanon) that is precisely the point in dispute, especially since the same Council of Carthage Pastor P invokes for authority affirmed the Deuterocanon as OT scripture. This is genuine circularity present in what Pastor P actually said, not a misreading, so naming it as begging the question is a correct "fallacy spotted."
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.