Appeal: antistrephon
From Jay Dyer vs Pedro from Crucible Debate: Sola Scriptura and Protestantism.
- #147653:38overturned Jay Dyer against Pedro agonisma: antistrephon (+3)
The council overturned the call, so no points were earned.
“The Pharisees. The very people that you think determine the canon.”
Diogenes: Pedro asked for a group whose traditions led it into heresy, intending tradition to indict itself; Jay supplies the Pharisees, the very body Pedro had credited with delivering the Old Testament canon, turning the intended weapon onto the source of Pedro's own scripture, and Pedro pivots without answering.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer has held throughout that oral/traditional authority accompanied scripture from the start and that Pedro's own admissions about Jewish/church transmission of the canon undercut his tradition-versus-scripture dichotomy; this move is a direct, escalating application of that standing critique, not a new or inconsistent line. Pedro had earlier credited "the Jews" (via Romans 3:1) as the group entrusted with the Old Testament canon, and Jay's own opening had already established the Pharisees as the normative representatives of that same Jewish tradition-bearing body Jesus called the "seat of Moses." When Pedro poses a trap question asking for an example of a group whose traditions led to heresy, Jay answers "the Pharisees, the very people you think determine the canon" — turning Pedro's own admitted premise (that this lineage delivered the canon) back to show that the very source of Pedro's scripture also elevated tradition into heresy, defeating the clean dichotomy Pedro's question assumed. Pedro does not engage this point at all and simply pivots to a different example ("And Catholics?"), leaving the retorsion unanswered.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. Jay directly answers Pedro's question ("The Pharisees") and then adds a pointed but relevant jab noting that Pedro's own earlier appeal to Jewish tradition-bearers for the Old Testament canon rests on the same kind of authority he's now conceding led to heresy. It comes alongside a direct answer, bears on Pedro's own consistency, and is grounded in something actually said earlier (Pedro's appeal to "the Jews" for the OT canon at ~41:37), so it passes the tests for fair rhetoric rather than ad hominem, and names no fallacy formally enough to score as "fallacy spotted" either.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Pedro's declared framework credits an instrumental human/Jewish community with transmitting the Old Testament canon under God's sovereignty; Jay's move exploits that very credit, and Pedro's silence on it is a pivot rather than a rebuttal, consistent with his pattern elsewhere of shifting rather than directly answering pointed historical challenges to his canon epistemology. Pedro's question ("is there any group... traditions that have led them to heresy?") was built to indict tradition-based authority generally. Jay turns Pedro's own framework back on him: Pedro has himself credited Jewish tradition (the Pharisaic/rabbinic mainstream Jay earlier identified as Jesus's own recognized successors of Moses' seat) as the vehicle that transmitted the Old Testament canon Pedro relies on; naming "the Pharisees" as a tradition-reliant group that fell into heresy uses Pedro's own indictment-of-tradition logic against the foundation of Pedro's own canon. Pedro does not engage this at all, immediately pivoting to "And Catholics? ...Pope Francis?" rather than answering how his own reliance escapes the charge.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: straw man by example or weakest form. Pedro's stated authority for the canon was "the Jews," broadly, via Romans 3:1 — he never credits "the Pharisees" specifically. Jay's line substitutes that narrower, already-maligned subgroup for Pedro's actual broader claim, an identification Jay builds only by splicing in his own earlier opening argument (Pharisees as "seat of Moses" successors), not anything Pedro conceded; the uphold votes have to complete that chain themselves rather than find it delivered. That is answering the weakest instance of the claim, not taking over the opponent's own argument, so no genuine antistrephon landed.
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.