Appeal: dodge
From Jay Dyer vs Pedro from Crucible Debate: Sola Scriptura and Protestantism.
- #148259:35upheld Pedro psogos: dodge (+2)
The council upheld the call: Pedro gave away 2 points.
“Pope Francis think Pope Francis thinks that gay marriage is okay. Right? We agree with that. Right?”
Diogenes: Asked three times how a dispute is settled when both sides appeal to scripture and no body can bind an interpretation, he answers with a case where he and Jay already agree, which is precisely the situation the question excludes; Jay names the evasion — "the fact that we would appeal to scripture itself does not disprove the point about normative authority."- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Pedro's opening and standing position is that scripture's objective meaning will "come forth" in disputes and expose the fallible party, an answer that avoids ever specifying a mechanism for binding disputed interpretations; the Pope Francis example is a continuation of that avoidance rather than the concession or direct answer the question called for. Jay's underlying question — how a dispute is settled when both sides appeal to scripture's text and there is no body able to authoritatively bind an interpretation — was put in general form at 58:16 ("is there an entity, a body, a group, which has normative authority to bind anyone...") and then pressed again specifically at 59:26 ("I'm asking you about a specific example where both sides are appealing to the text of scripture and you don't have any way for the church to authoritatively bind anyone"). Pedro's Pope Francis example answers a case where he and Jay already agree on the correct reading, which is precisely not the scenario of an unresolved dispute the question named; Jay immediately flags this mismatch, and Pedro never afterward supplies a case of genuine scriptural disagreement left unresolved by binding authority, instead pivoting to the separate canon question. The question was pressed twice in substance and left unanswered.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "red herring", on the same ledger as the callout. Jay's live question was how normative authority resolves a dispute where both sides appeal to scripture (he'd just raised the Arian/Nicene controversy), but Pedro pivots to Pope Francis and papal infallibility — a case both men already agree is wrong and which is not a scripture-vs-scripture dispute at all. Jay immediately flags the non sequitur: "the fact that we would appeal to scripture itself does not disprove the point about normative authority," showing the example dodged rather than answered the question of how disputed interpretations get authoritatively settled.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Pedro's declared position is that scripture is the supreme lens through which church authority is checked, with the church having only derivative, scripture-bound authority; this exchange tests exactly how that works when two scripture-readers disagree, and Pedro substitutes an example of agreement rather than addressing the mechanism for disagreement, a genuine departure from answering the question put. Jay asked a specific question — how a dispute is settled when both parties appeal to scripture with no body able to bind an interpretation — first generally, then re-posed explicitly ("I'm asking you about a specific example where both sides are appealing to the text of scripture and you don't have any way for the church to authoritatively bind anyone"). Pedro's Pope Francis example is a case where he and Jay already agree, which is not the situation posed (unresolved dispute between two scripture-appealers), and Jay directly flags that the answer "does not disprove the point about normative authority." The actual question about a binding mechanism for genuine interpretive disputes is never subsequently answered.
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.