Appeal: internal critique
From DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Pastor Jonathan Shelley | Tradition Vs Sola Scriptura.
- #229233:36upheld Jay Dyer epainos: internal critique (+1) tempered from major to minor
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“So you're a polytheist because you believe in the father, the son, and holy spirit, and a book…”
Diogenes: From Shelley's own statements that the Bible is eternal, uncreated and "always existed", Jay derives that he posits a fourth eternal uncreated reality beside the Trinity, which Shelley rejects. The derivation is stated, though sneeringly.minor: It is drawn from premises Shelley affirmed in this exchange ("Is this a creation? No. It's always existed.") and it exposes the cost of his equivocation on "word of God", but it is compressed.
The bench graded it minor (Aristotle, Plato); the referee had major.
- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Dyer opened by declaring that the Word is a divine person who makes himself known through both written text and oral tradition, and that the Bible is a created medium. He has held that throughout, and the called line applies it against Shelley's claim that the Bible is eternal. Shelley had just said the Bible is eternal and "always existed". Dyer drew from that a conclusion Shelley rejects: an eternal book beside Father, Son and Spirit makes four eternals, which is polytheism. The premise is Shelley's own and the link is stated in the line. The tone is abusive, but that does not cancel the derivation. Dyer pressed the same point with the same stated reasoning (a created book against the eternal Logos) over the next several minutes, and Shelley then conceded that the physical book is not eternal.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. Shelley had just said the Bible is eternal, and Jay draws a reductio from it: an eternal book alongside Father, Son and Spirit would be a fourth eternal thing. The inference is harsh and is not developed, and Shelley rejects it at once. It still rests on his own stated claim, so it is not a distortion of his view. The insulting escalation comes after this line, so the line alone shows no clear fault or merit.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Dyer declared at the opening that the Word is a divine person made known through both written text and oral tradition, and that the Bible is a created medium. He has held that throughout, and this line applies it against Shelley's claim that the book is eternal, so it does not depart from his position. Shelley said the Bible is eternal and "always existed". Dyer drew from that a fourth eternal reality beside the Trinity, which Shelley rejects. That is a stated derivation from Shelley's own premises, so it counts as internal critique. It is brief and sneering, and the derivation is mostly implicit, so the severity is better as minor than major.
- Thesmothetes uphold: By the rule: every element of the label is found in the record. Shelley said at 33:25 and 33:32 that the Bible is eternal and "always existed", and he confirmed it when Jay asked directly. From that premise Jay stated the link in the line itself: an eternal book beside Father, Son and Spirit makes a fourth eternal thing, which is polytheism. Shelley rejected that conclusion at once, so all three elements are in the record. The tone is abusive and the derivation is brief, so minor severity fits.
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.