Appeal: misrepresentation
From FULL SAVAGE DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Indiana Brunner: Protestant Bible Wrong???.
- #59336:24upheld Indiana Brunner psogos: misrepresentation (+1)
The council upheld the call: Indiana Brunner gave away 1 point.
“Yes. Because you're you're shifting the you're shifting the goalposts.”
Diogenes: Moving the goalposts requires a condition he set, met, and then replaced; he names none, and the charge is used to avoid the verses just put to him.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S1 has held throughout that doctrine must rest on what the text explicitly says, generally answering directly (as in the John six and baptism exchanges); this line departs from that pattern by deploying an unsupported fallacy label to sidestep Jay's direct question rather than engaging it. "Moving the goalposts" requires a condition the accused set, that the accuser met, and that was then replaced; scanning back through the whole eucharist/baptism exchange, Jay never sets and later changes such a condition — he introduces new supporting texts (water, Titus 3, John 6, Hebrews 13) without ever conceding a specific standard was met. S1 names no such condition either, and the line comes in place of answering Jay's direct question "Is that not your position?", to which S1 instead pivots back to "John three." That is a false characterization of what actually happened in the exchange, used to avoid the question on the table — misrepresentation of the debate's own history rather than a genuine instance of the named fallacy.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. Reading the whole exchange, no goalpost is actually visible here: Dyer had not set a condition that Brunner met and then swapped for another; he was simply extending the same point (physical media of grace) from the Eucharist to baptism. Brunner's "shifting the goalposts" is a loose, unsupported label thrown out mid-interruption rather than a demonstrated fallacy, but it is brief and answered in the same breath, so nothing rises to a scoreable fault on either ledger.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Indiana's declared method is to ground doctrine in explicit textual engagement and answer point by point; here, rather than answering Jay's direct "is that not your position?" or engaging the string of verses just put to him, he characterizes Jay's cumulative-evidence approach (John 6, Hebrews 13, Titus 3/Acts 2) as goalpost-shifting without identifying any condition Jay set, met, and then replaced. The record shows no goalpost Jay set and moved; he was building a cumulative case across related texts, which he himself immediately distinguishes from the fallacy ("bringing up further examples is not moving the goalpost"). Labeling this shift-of-topic as goalpost-moving mischaracterizes what Jay actually did and substitutes for answering the direct question just put, fitting misrepresentation.
- Thesmothetes uphold: By the rule: a restated objection is not a moved goalpost: the condition must be found in the record, set, met, then replaced. The rule requires a condition actually set by the speaker, met by the opponent, and then replaced before "goalposts" can be called moved; scanning the whole eucharist/baptism exchange from Hebrews 13 through Titus 3 and Acts 2, Jay never set such a condition — he was cumulatively adding supporting texts (water, John six, Hebrews thirteen), which he himself distinguishes from goalpost-shifting in the very next line. Indiana names no condition either, and levels the charge instead of answering Jay's direct "Is that not your position?" — exactly the misrepresentation two judges, applying this rule's own test to the record, found.
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.