Appeal: fallacy spotted
From Jay Dyer vs Pedro from Crucible Debate: Sola Scriptura and Protestantism.
- #15211:46:31upheld Jay Dyer epainos: fallacy spotted (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“No, that no, is equivocating here, do you know God's will for you?”
Diogenes: Pedro had grounded the claim in scripture and then, under pressure, recast it as "a truth of reality"; Jay catches the shift of sense between the two grounds and re-puts the question.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay has held throughout that Pedro's appeals repeatedly collapse into scripture-based (special revelation) justification while being dressed as general/natural claims; this callout is consistent with that standing critique, not a new or contradictory position. Pedro's claim about knowing God's will shifted mid-exchange from an epistemic ground in scripture to being framed as simply "a truth of reality," and Jay catches that shift in the sense of the ground being invoked rather than letting the reframing pass unchallenged — this is a fair, minor diagnosis of an equivocal move actually made in the transcript, not an invented one.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "fallacy spotted". Across this whole stretch Pedro slides between 'general revelation' (a bare truth of reality, that God exists) and specific content about God's personal will and purposes that he can only get from scripture (special revelation), using the same word 'truth' or 'know' for both; Jay's equivocation charge tracks this actual shift, which is confirmed moments later when Pedro, pressed on the source of 'God's will for you,' can only answer 'you have to go to scripture.'
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay's continuing objection throughout the closing Q&A is that Pedro cannot identify a stable, non-circular epistemic source for his claims; this line is a direct continuation of that same pressed line of questioning, not a new or unsupported charge. Just before this, Jay had gotten Pedro to affirm the claim about God's will was "a truth that you derive from scripture," and Pedro then reframed it as "a truth of reality" instead of confirming or denying the scriptural grounding — the same evasive shift between "general revelation," "reality," and "scripture" that recurs throughout this whole exchange. Naming this shift "equivocating" is a fair (if loosely applied) description of an actual inconsistency in what Pedro just said, not an invented one.
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.