Appeal: false claim
From Fr. Ananias and Jay Dyer vs Matt Slick: Orthodoxy vs Protestantism Debate.
- #25550:30overturned Jay Dyer claim: false claim (+1)
The council overturned the finding, so nothing is marked against Jay Dyer.
The claim, as Thucydides noted it: All the saints agree with one another and with the ecumenical councils.
Diogenes: Thucydides (verifier): unsupported. Dyer answers "They do. I can go read them," but names no text. Within the Orthodox tradition's own framework, the consensus of the Fathers (consensus patrum) means agreement on the core of the faith. It does not mean every saint agrees on every point. The Fathers are known to differ on some questions, such as the filioque and the fate of souls. As an unqualified claim that all the saints agree with each other, it is not borne out by any source. Taken as the Orthodox claim of a moral consensus, it is a tradition-internal assertion, not a checkable fact.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Jay Dyer declared at the opening that the ecumenical councils are inspired and inerrant, known by the Holy Spirit and agreement with the saints and scriptures, and he held that in the replay at 114:26; the called line is consistent with that position and does not depart from it. The quoted line is not Dyer's wording. He said only "They do. I can go read them," in answer to Slick's charge that he was assuming the saints agree. The fact-check ("false claim") needs a falsehood. The verifier found only that no text was named and that the claim is a tradition-internal assertion, which is not the same as false. The verifier also grants that consensus patrum means agreement on the core of the faith, and Dyer's claim is best read that way. With the finding at "unsupported" and the reading close, the claim is not shown false, so I overturn.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "bare assertion", on the same ledger as the callout. Matt challenged the claim that the saints all agree as an assumption. Jay answers only "They do. I can go read them," with no father, text or council named. The claim stays contested and unsupported, and he then relies on it ("You have no continuity with history") as if it were settled.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Jay Dyer declared at the opening that the ecumenical synods are inspired and inerrant, known by the Holy Spirit and by their agreement with the saints and scripture, and he has held that line since. The called line, that the saints agree with each other and with the councils, restates that position and does not depart from it. The quoted words are not Dyer's. His actual reply was "They do. I can go read them." This is a restatement of his standing claim, made in answer to Slick's challenge. By the Orthodox framework Thucydides cites, the claim means consensus on the faith's core, and that is the sense in which Dyer used it. The finding calls the claim unsupported and also admits it is a tradition-internal assertion, which is not a checkable falsehood. Whether it is false or not is a toss-up, so the call is overturned.
- Thesmothetes overturn: By the rule: the verifier's finding: misquoted, unsupported or misread: the source does not bear the claim, so an evidence call is overturned. The verifier's finding is only "unsupported" and "a tradition-internal assertion", not that the claim is false. Dyer's "They do. I can go read them" restates his standing position that the councils agree with the saints, and in the Orthodox sense of consensus on the core of the faith it is not shown to be wrong. A false claim must be shown false, and here that is at best a toss-up, so the call is overturned.
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.