Appeal: ad hominem
From Jay Dyer vs Pastor P Debate Orthodoxy vs Protestantism, Sola Scriptura and Church History.
- #13961:48:45upheld Sarah Mer (caller) psogos: ad hominem (+1)
The council upheld the call: Sarah Mer (caller) gave away 1 point.
“I'm saying when I listen to Jay Dyer, I can't help but think that this is kind of pharisaical, isn't it?”
Diogenes: Having asked a hard question and received an answer, she replies not to the answer but to the manner of the man giving it — and, as she immediately concedes, her own answer to the same question was identical.Herodotus (no): The site's own record shows Sarah Mer as a caller with 0 debates prior to this one (Philosopher 0, Sophist 0), and web searches for her name alongside Jay Dyer or Modern Day Debate turn up nothing — she has no documented history with this opponent or on this platform at all. This was her first and only recorded exchange with Jay Dyer, so there is no pattern of ad hominem conduct to point to; the callout must be judged solely on this single transcript exchange, where she called his answer "pharisaical" once, immediately after receiving a substantive answer and after admitting her own answer to the same question was identical.
- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S8's declared stance in this exchange was to press Jay on the fate of non-Orthodox Christians as a challenge to Orthodox exclusivism; when Jay answers with the same epistemic humility she herself displays moments later, she does not withdraw or refine the charge but simply restates the same unsupported "pharisaical" label, which is a jab substituting for engagement rather than a new argument. Jay had already given a substantive, historically-grounded answer to her original question (individual destiny outside the visible church, citing Acts 8-9 and the thief on the cross) and had explicitly objected that calling him a pharisee for giving a fair answer to a hard question "isn't fair." Rather than answering that objection or identifying any specific inconsistency in his reasoning, she simply repeats the same unspecific character slur ("pharisaical") — which fails the truth test (no specific fault is named) and the substitution test (it replaces engagement with his rebuttal rather than accompanying one), especially since her own answer to the parallel question ("did Protestants who died outside the faith go to hell?" — "I don't know") turns out to be identical in kind to the answer she is faulting him for giving.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "ad hominem". Jay had just given a substantive answer (that individual destinies are for God to judge, but the church's task is to evangelize, illustrated by Acts) when S8 responds only with "I can't help but think that this is kind of pharisaical, isn't it?" — a character label with no specific content pointed to in what Jay actually said, offered instead of engaging the substance of his answer. Jay later shows the charge is unsupported by getting S8 to admit he gave the identical "I don't know" answer when the same question was turned on him.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S8 has no prior standing position in this debate beyond her opening framing as a reluctant Protestant who is Orthodox curious; her move here is to answer Jays point with a character label rather than engage it, repeating that label after already being pressed on it once. This substitutes for engagement with the actual answer given rather than accompanying a rebuttal of it; it offers no specific instance of hypocrisy, and the moderator immediately points out the two answers were functionally identical, meaning the label tracks no real distinguishing feature of the answer, only its manner and vocabulary.
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.