Appeal: fallacy spotted
From Jay Dyer vs Pastor P Debate Orthodoxy vs Protestantism, Sola Scriptura and Church History.
- #13991:55:32upheld Jay Dyer epainos: fallacy spotted (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“… if you think that I'm mean or or whatever you think I'm the worst person ever, none of that has anything to do with whether the positions are true or false.”
Diogenes: He states the principle behind the ad hominem charge cleanly, separating judgments of his character from the truth of the claims under dispute.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer has consistently, throughout the debate, called out moves he takes to be logical fallacies (disagreement/consensus not bearing on truth, etc.) rather than engaging them on their own terms, and this line is a continuation of that same practice applied correctly to Sarah Mer's character-based attack. In the preceding exchange, Sarah Mer repeatedly characterized Jay's answer as "pharisaical" and implied he was acting "morally superior," without ever engaging the substance of his theological answer (the episcopate/providence argument); this is a character-based dismissal standing in place of engagement with the claim on the table. Jay's quoted line correctly states the principle that refutes this move — personal characterization (mean, worst person) has no bearing on whether the underlying positions are true or false — which is a legitimate identification of the ad hominem substitution Sarah Mer had just made, not merely a generic platitude detached from what she said.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "fallacy spotted (ad hominem)". After the caller repeatedly branded him "pharisaical" without engaging his actual answer about the fate of non-Orthodox Christians, Jay correctly names that a character judgment of the speaker is irrelevant to whether the position argued is true, refusing to let the personal attack substitute for the substantive question on the table.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer has consistently pressed that disagreement, sentiment, or character judgments are logically irrelevant to which position is objectively true (the same point he made earlier against Pastor P regarding denominational disagreement); this line is a direct, consistent application of that standing methodological point, not a new or opportunistic move. Immediately following Sarah Mer's repeated "Pharisee"/"hyperintellectual" characterizations rather than engagement with his answer, Jay explicitly separates the question of his personal character from the truth-value of the position under dispute — this correctly names the ad hominem fallacy actually committed by the caller in the preceding exchange, not a fabricated or irrelevant fallacy charge.
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.