Appeal: misrepresentation
From Jay Dyer vs Pedro from Crucible Debate: Sola Scriptura and Protestantism.
- #143933:43upheld Jay Dyer psogos: misrepresentation (+1) tempered from major to minor
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer gave away 1 point.
“… he alluded to the fact that, well, he said, the bible is authoritative, Jesus is authoritative, and Jesus is God. But that's begging the question because we're asking about the text that tell us that Jesus is authoritative and Jesus is from God.”
Diogenes: Pedro's chain deliberately started below scriptural authority — the Bible "at the very least" as a reliable historical artifact ("we don't believe this, but who at the very least is a prophet of God") and reasoned up to Christ's divinity; Jay reports the conclusion as the premise, so the circle he names is in his summary rather than in what Pedro said.The bench graded it minor (Aristotle, Plato); the referee had major.
- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer has held since the opening that no appeal to scripture's content can non-circularly certify scripture's own canon/authority without an external mechanism (church tradition/continuity); this line is consistent with that standing critique in aim, but in its specific execution it restates Pedro's argument in an order Pedro did not give it, manufacturing the circle it then condemns. Pedro's opening laid out an explicit three-step chain as his stated answer to "how do you know Matthew wrote Matthew": Bible as a mere reliable historical artifact → facts about Jesus (sinlessness, self-testimony) → Jesus is God → therefore the Bible is revelation, not just artifact, and stands "at the principium." That is an argument that starts from a weaker premise and argues up to the conclusion that scripture is authoritative; it is not a premise that begins by assuming scripture's authority. Jay's rebuttal collapses this into "he said, the bible is authoritative, Jesus is authoritative, and Jesus is God," treating the argument's conclusion as a co-equal starting premise, which is what manufactures the flat circle he then calls begging the question. The genuine circularity in Pedro's position (using Gospel content to certify Jesus's divinity, then using that divinity to certify the Gospels) is real but is a different, subtler circle than the one Jay actually names and attacks — the fallacy Jay identifies is an artifact of his own restatement, not of Pedro's stated chain.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found "fallacy spotted". Pedro's opening statement laid out exactly this chain to answer "how do you know Matthew wrote Matthew without the church": the Bible is authoritative, it presents Jesus as God (via the sinlessness argument), so "his view of scripture should therefore be the church's view of scripture." Jay accurately summarizes that chain and correctly notes it begs the question, since the authorship/canonicity of Matthew is precisely what's in dispute, and the chain answers it by appealing back to the text's own authority (established through claims about Jesus that themselves depend on the text). The fallacy is in what Pedro said, not a mischaracterization of it.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer has held since the opening that any appeal to scripture's authority to settle canon/authorship questions is question-begging; here he applies that objection, but only by first restating Pedro's actual multi-step chain as a bare set of flat assertions Pedro did not make in that form. Pedro's opening deliberately built an ascending chain — Bible as mere "reliable historical artifact," then Jesus as "at least a prophet," then via Jesus's self-testimony and sinlessness to "Jesus is in fact God," and only then to scripture's elevated authority — precisely so as not to presuppose scriptural authority at the outset. Jay's summary flattens this into three co-equal premises ("the bible is authoritative, Jesus is authoritative, and Jesus is God") and then calls that flattened version circular. The circle he identifies is an artifact of his own compression, inverting premise and conclusion, not a circle Pedro actually stated; that is misrepresentation of the argument's structure, not a fallacy caught in Pedro's own words.
- Thesmothetes uphold: By the rule: straw man by example or weakest form. Pedro's opening statement deliberately built an ascending chain to avoid the very circularity Jay names: "The Bible is a reliable artifact that gives us a fair record of history... it describes Jesus Christ who at the very least... is a prophet" — explicitly not yet claiming scriptural authority — and only after establishing Jesus's self-testimony and sinlessness does he conclude "Jesus is in fact God... [so] scripture... stands at the principium." Jay's rebuttal flattens this staged argument into three co-equal starting premises — "the bible is authoritative, Jesus is authoritative, and Jesus is God" — and attacks that weaker, order-erased version as begging the question, while Pedro's actual point (arguing from a merely historical artifact up to authority, precisely to dodge the circularity charge) goes unaddressed. That is answering the weakest restatement of the argument rather than the argument as given.
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.