Appeal: aporia
From Jay Dyer vs Pedro from Crucible Debate: Sola Scriptura and Protestantism.
- #15261:51:52upheld Jay Dyer against Pedro agonisma: aporia (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1.2 points.
“And I asked you, is that god As a result, just from looking out in the said, is he personal? And you said, yes. Yes. And then you said, is it father, son, holy spirit? So now it's not general revelation anymore.”
Diogenes: Pedro had retreated to general revelation as his pre-scriptural ground, then conceded the Trinity is a doctrine of special revelation; Jay shows the two cannot both stand, and Pedro abandons the line outright — "I would say move forward. Move forward."- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay's declared method throughout is a presuppositional/epistemic critique pressing Pedro on where his claims are actually grounded (general vs. special revelation, scripture vs. tradition), and this exchange is a direct, successful application of that same standing line of attack, not a new or inconsistent move. Jay's trap is real and decisive: Pedro had retreated to "general revelation" as the pre-scriptural ground for knowing God, but under questioning admitted the god so known is personal and specifically triune (father, son, holy spirit) — a doctrine of special revelation, not general revelation — and when Jay points out the contradiction, Pedro offers no resolution, only "Alright. I I would say move forward. Move forward." That is an admission of having no answer, not a withdrawal from the debate itself, since Pedro resumes arguing other points moments later; aporia (dead end, no answer given) fits better than thrasymachus blush (withdrawal from arguing, changing the subject for good, or leaving).
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "fallacy spotted", on the same ledger as the callout. Jay accurately recaps Pedro's own answers (personal god: "yes"; a personhood that isn't father/son/spirit: "no," i.e., it is the Trinity: "yes") and draws the valid conclusion that this content — Trinitarian personhood — cannot be what Pedro elsewhere claimed comes from "general revelation," since Pedro himself agreed the Trinity is a doctrine of revelation. This correctly names the equivocation on "general revelation" that Pedro had been sliding between (bare existence vs. specific triune content) rather than merely asserting it.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay's consistent method throughout is presuppositional pressure on the source of Pedro's theological knowledge-claims; here that method catches Pedro's own general-revelation appeal collapsing into special revelation, a fresh trap (not a restated prior concession), and Pedro's "move forward" is a dead end rather than a resolution or an outright withdrawal from arguing. The verified transcript confirms Jay forced a genuine, specific contradiction — Pedro's professed "general revelation" ground turned out, on his own answers, to already contain the Trinity, a doctrine of special revelation — and Pedro could not resolve it, replying only "I would say move forward. Move forward," offering no answer to the contradiction itself. This is a decisive move, but since Pedro does not withdraw from the debate or change the subject for good (he continues engaging moments later), aporia fits better than thrasymachus blush.
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.