Appeal: equivocation
From Jay Dyer vs Pedro from Crucible Debate: Sola Scriptura and Protestantism.
- #15321:59:33upheld Pedro psogos: equivocation (+2)
The council upheld the call: Pedro gave away 2 points.
“Brother, we have a prime example right now. Pope Francis. Pope Francis. Their tradition led to that. Correct?”
Diogenes: He slides between "a particular false tradition" and "tradition as such": the papacy's errors are offered as an indictment of tradition generally, when Jay's claim was always that true and false tradition must be distinguished — and it is the third time an authority both men already reject has been substituted for the disputed case.Herodotus (unknown): Site records and public search agree this Sola Scriptura debate (Jay Dyer vs. Pedro, published Oct 8 2021 via Jay's Analysis / The Crucible) is the only recorded meeting between these two speakers — Pedro has just 1 debate logged here, and no other Dyer-Pedro exchange turns up anywhere online. So there is no cross-debate history of Pedro repeating this tactic against Dyer or anyone else; the referee's "third time" language refers only to repetition within this single transcript, not an established pattern across encounters. Any leniency argument based on "no prior history of this fault" would be accurate for Pedro (this is his sole appearance), but that cuts against him too — there's no track record to soften an accusation of a repeated pattern, since the only repetition on file happened within this very debate. Sources: https://jaysanalysis.com/protestant-vs-orthodox-debate-is-sola-scriptura-true-jay-dyer-vs-pedro/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GSc9r9_q7w
- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Pedro has held since the opening that traditions in general must be tested against scripture and can go wrong, but this specific rhetorical move repeatedly (within this debate) uses a tradition already rejected by both sides — papal infallibility — to indict tradition as such, which is a departure into equivocation rather than a mere restatement of his general position. Pedro's move slides from indicting one specific false tradition — papal infallibility, a doctrine both debaters already reject — to treating this as evidence against "tradition" as a category, when Jay's actual position throughout has been that true apostolic tradition (councils, succession, liturgy) must be distinguished from false human tradition like the papacy. Using an example neither side defends to argue against a position Jay does defend is a genuine equivocation on the word "tradition," and Jay names it accurately in real time ("You're equivocating on tradition... I'm not saying all tradition is the problem"), which I have already credited as an accurate fallacy-spotting on Jay's ledger for this same exchange — consistency requires crediting the underlying fault on Pedro's side too.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "red herring", on the same ledger as the callout. The live question was who constitutes "the actual true church" as the pillar and ground of truth per Jay's apostolic-succession argument. Pedro pivots to Pope Francis — a figure from the Roman Catholic tradition, not the Orthodox tradition Jay defends — leading the argument away from that question toward a hot-button controversy, exactly the same diversionary move already made earlier at 59:35. Jay correctly flags it as irrelevant to the debate between them, and the move also sets up the equivocation on "tradition" that Jay names moments later.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Pedro's declared framework treats tradition as subordinate to and tested by scripture, not as inherently corrupt, yet here he uses a tradition already rejected by both debaters to indict tradition broadly, which is the equivocation the label names rather than a restatement of his stated position. Jay's standing position, restated repeatedly (e.g., "you're just confusing false tradition with true tradition"), distinguishes legitimate apostolic tradition from corrupt "traditions of men." Pedro's Pope Francis example — the papacy's own claimed authority (papal infallibility), which both men reject — is offered as proof that "tradition" as such is untrustworthy, sliding from a specific rejected case to tradition-in-general. Jay names the fault directly in the transcript itself ("Do you know what equivocation is? You're equivocating on tradition..."), and this is the third time within this single debate that the same rejected papal example is substituted for the actual disputed case (apostolic/patristic tradition), which both sides do not already agree is false.
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.