Appeal: misrepresentation
From Jay Dyer vs Pedro from Crucible Debate: Sola Scriptura and Protestantism.
- #15352:07:31upheld Pedro psogos: misrepresentation (+1)
The council upheld the call: Pedro gave away 1 point.
“You say we don't, value any any any tradition. Right?”
Diogenes: Jay had been asked this exact thing earlier — "Do you think we are traditionless? Is that your thought?" — and answered "No. Not at all," so the view is attributed to him after he expressly disclaimed it, and he has to correct it again.Herodotus (no): This Jay Dyer vs. Pedro "Sola Scriptura" debate (Jay's Analysis, Oct 8 2021, Pedro appearing from The Crucible) is the only recorded meeting between these two speakers anywhere in the site record or in public listings — Pedro has just 1 debate here total, and no other Pedro/Jay Dyer encounter turns up in search results. A "pattern" accusation therefore cannot be grounded in prior history between these two; the referee's call is based solely on an in-debate contradiction (Pedro restating a claim Jay had explicitly disclaimed minutes earlier), not on any established track record of misrepresentation by Pedro against Jay across multiple debates. The severity is already marked "minor," which fits an isolated lapse rather than a demonstrated pattern. 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's declared method has been to press Jay on tradition versus scripture and to restate Jay's positions before rebutting them; here he restates a position Jay expressly disclaimed minutes earlier rather than the one Jay actually holds, which is the misrepresentation the label names, and the isolated, in-debate nature of the lapse supports the minor severity already assigned. Jay was asked directly earlier, "Do you think we are traditionless? Is that your thought?" and answered unambiguously, "No. Not at all. That's why I tried to refer to the points where you did invoke tradition and point out that I think it's inconsistent..." Pedro's later line attributes to Jay the very view he explicitly disclaimed — that Pedro's camp doesn't value any tradition — which the transcript shows Jay did not hold; Jay's actual argument was narrower (inconsistency in how tradition is weighted for canon versus elsewhere), not a blanket denial that Protestants have traditions.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "misrepresentation". Pedro attributes to Jay the claim "we don't value any tradition," but the transcript already shows Jay explicitly disclaiming exactly this at 54:28-30 ("No. Not at all... it's inconsistent because the very thing that you admit is involved in the canon... isn't authoritative"). Reasserting it here also serves to sidestep the live charge Jay had just made — that Pedro's defense of sola scriptura's basis is circular ("It's a circle... a fallacy") — by pivoting to a settled, mischaracterized point instead of answering the circularity objection.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay's position of record throughout is that word of God is written and oral tradition, and that Pedro's camp does have traditions but treats them as merely instrumental/subordinate rather than truly authoritative; Jay never claimed Pedro's side has no tradition at all, and the record shows him expressly denying that characterization once already before Pedro restates it here. The transcript confirms Jay was already asked this exact question at 54:23 ("Do you think we are traditionless? Is that your thought?") and explicitly answered "No. Not at all," yet Pedro here attributes the disclaimed view back to him ("You say we don't value any any any tradition"), forcing Jay to correct it again ("That's not true").
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.