Appeal: clarification
From Jay Dyer vs Pedro from Crucible Debate: Sola Scriptura and Protestantism.
- #15281:53:15upheld Jay Dyer epainos: clarification (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“… if I say to you that I think that's begging the question, do you understand why I say that? I'm not asking if you agree with me, but do you understand why I that?”
Diogenes: He separates comprehension from assent and then walks through the objection step by step, inviting the opponent to keep examining rather than closing the question in front of the audience.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer has consistently pressed for precise definitions and understanding throughout the cross-examination (e.g., pressing on "epistemic," "general revelation," "begging the question"), and this line continues that same method rather than departing from it. Jay explicitly separates whether Pedro agrees from whether Pedro understands the objection, and follows up by asking Pedro to "take us through" and "explain" his reasoning rather than assuming or asserting — this matches the clarification category and is consistent with his running practice of pausing to confirm shared understanding of terms before proceeding.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "clarification". Jay explicitly distinguishes comprehension from agreement before pressing his begging-the-question charge further, checking that Pedro has grasped the logical structure of the objection rather than assuming it or steamrolling past it; Pedro's honest "I don't know" and request to be walked through it shows the check served real dialectical progress, and Jay does go on to explain (113:30 onward).
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer's framework objection since early in the debate has been that Pedro's appeals to scripture/God's sovereignty to justify the canon or its epistemic content beg the question; here he pauses that same line of pressing to explicitly separate whether Pedro understands the objection from whether he agrees with it, then invites Pedro to walk through his own reasoning — a genuine clarificatory move consistent with, not a departure from, his standing approach. The quote explicitly distinguishes comprehension from assent ("I'm not asking if you agree with me, but do you understand why I say that?") and is followed by Jay inviting Pedro to "take us through that line" and "explain it," which Pedro then attempts — this is a clarification move inviting continued examination rather than closing it off, matching the philosopher category as described.
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.