Appeal: steelman
From Jay Dyer vs Pastor P Debate Orthodoxy vs Protestantism, Sola Scriptura and Church History.
- #13921:41:53upheld Rambling Man (caller) epainos: steelman (+1)
The council upheld the call: Rambling Man (caller) earned 1 point.
“… but you'll do the additional move where you'll say, but the way we adjudicate a dispute between me and the heretic is we go back to the word, and we just check the word and find out if it's consistent with the word. But indeed, the heretic can do the same thing and come to his heretic you know, heretical conclusion.”
Diogenes: He states his opponent's next move for him, in his opponent's own terms, and only then gives the objection — anticipating the reply rather than waiting to knock down a weaker one.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Rambling Man's line of questioning across his turn was to press Pastor P on how heresy is adjudicated under sola scriptura; here he explicitly voices the reply he expects ("go back to the word... check the word") before objecting that a heretic could do the same — this is a genuine anticipatory steelman, not a strawman, since it is charitable and accurate to what Pastor P had been saying throughout (e.g., "square everything with the word of God"). The speaker states the opponent's likely move in the opponent's own terms, faithful to Pastor P's repeated sola scriptura framing elsewhere in the debate, before offering his objection — this satisfies the steelman definition (accurate, charitable restatement before answering), even though it is unusual in being anticipatory rather than post-hoc.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument", on the same ledger as the callout. Rambling Man lays out a clear premise-conclusion argument: Pastor P's proposed method for resolving doctrinal disputes ("go back to the word and check it") cannot function as a dispute-resolution mechanism because a heretic can invoke the exact same method and reach an opposite conclusion, so the criterion fails to discriminate truth from error. This is a legitimate philosophical point about circularity in sola scriptura's self-referential justification, not an ad hominem or fallacy, and it is addressed directly to Pastor P, who is on the floor.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S4 (Rambling Man) opened by asking whether heretics truly believed their heresy, then pressed on how Pastor P's system distinguishes heretical from orthodox interpretation; this line continues that same thread by anticipating and accurately voicing Pastor P's characteristic "check it against the word" move (which matches Pastor P's repeated refrain throughout the debate) before raising the circularity objection. The caller accurately and charitably restates the move Pastor P has made repeatedly elsewhere in the debate (checking claims against "the word") before objecting that a heretic could invoke the identical procedure — this is a textbook steelman-then-rebut, not an unfair anticipation of a strawman.
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.